KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Officials favoring a rolling roof concept in Kansas City said Wednesday the plan could still be on track.

Moments after Jackson County voters decided to support a sales tax that will raise $425 million to overhaul Kauffman and Arrowhead stadiums -- and narrowly defeated a tax to raise money for a proposed roof -- Chiefs vice chairman Jack Steadman was already thinking about the next step.

"We kind of left on the table some major events that would give Kansas City worldwide exposure," Steadman said. "We're disappointed about that. There was discussion last night and there will be ongoing discussion about bringing that back."

Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt and Royals owner David Glass have both expressed interest in revisiting the $200 million rolling roof plan, which led to assurances of the 2015 Super Bowl and the potential to host NCAA basketball championships if it were passed. But it failed, winning only 49 percent of the vote.

About $170 million of the project would have been funded by a user tax mainly affecting Jackson County businesses, with the remainder kicked in by the Chiefs. And Steadman said he doesn't think officials will scrap that plan entirely.

"We think maybe with a single issue and better information and what it can do for Kansas City, voters will give it approval," he said.

Bob White of HOK, the design firm that developed many of the conceptual drawings, said officials didn't expect voters to approve the renovation without saying yes to the rolling roof.

While White said plans can move forward for now, the decision to add a roof must happen soon. Officials hope construction will begin after the 2006 football season, which makes August a likely time for another ballot measure.

That means a final proposal must be drawn up by the end of May, Jackson County Executive Kathryn Shields said.

"The teams need to start expressing that desire. We need to sit down, look at the results, and see if it makes sense," she said. "Clearly people had issues that we had not successfully addressed."

Shields said voting on the two measures simultaneously -- with passage of the rolling roof contingent upon passing the 3/8-cent sales tax -- may have confused voters, and "when people get confused they tend to vote no."

She also said regardless of whether the current plan goes forward with improved publicity or a new financing plan, discussions with taxpayers and both franchises will happen soon.

"A roof has long been a dream," said Kevin Gray, president of the Kansas City Sports Commission. "But I don't think the issue is dead. I'm confident it's a good idea. Whether the exact design makes sense, I don't know."

Organizers from Portland, Ore., to Charlotte, N.C., who are trying to lure a major league baseball franchise were keenly aware of Kansas City's vote.

"I never thought of Kansas City being an unstable franchise," said Jerry Reese, a lawyer in Charlotte who is proposing a $500 million downtown stadium development in an attempt to lure the Florida Marlins or another franchise. "I'm happy for their fans there."

Dave Hallerud of Grain Valley, Mo., voted yes for both measures, and as he sat down along the right field line at Kauffman Stadium during the Royals' game against the Detroit Tigers on Wednesday, he pointed to the facility's cracked pavement and deteriorating state.

"They needed to do something to keep the teams here," he said. "And the roof, they'll probably try again. Lamar wants a Super Bowl pretty bad. Maybe the owners will pony up some more money."

While Hallerud favored the rolling roof, some called it a wasteful luxury that would only benefit the Chiefs. Many more thought it had a better chance of passing if the teams were simply more competitive. The Royals haven't reached the playoffs since winning the World Series in 1985 and the Chiefs haven't won a playoff game since the 1993 season.

"I think (the roof) has a chance if they market it better and if they win more games," said Clay Wallace of Lee's Summit, Mo., who voted against the roof. "If they were filling the stadium it would have a better chance."

thank you. based on some people i spoke to at kci on my way out, some seemed confused, saying things like, paying one tax to help the teams is fine, but, a rolling roof is too much tax burden on us. like, they did not get that the rolling roof was not paid by them.

MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!

Yeah, I think the roof got voted down because they thought it was going to be part of 3/8 cent sales tax. Someone didn't do a good job of educating the people of Jackson County of who was going to pay for the roof. Either that or half of Jackson County voters weren't listening or misread the question. They saw the word tax on another question and automatically thought that the citizens were being taxed again

Kathryn Shields says she thinks the roof issuse will do better if it's on a ballot by itself...since they can really foucs on the "issuses" about it, and thus, educating more people about it.

Does anyone think they will try the roof again....with the exact same plan that failed????

beautyfromashes wrote:This thread is now worse than the Downtown Stadium/ Save our Stadiums thread. It makes me want to shoot myself in the head everytime I see it turn red. Congratulations ATKC, you now = kcdcchef.

AllThingsKC wrote:Kathryn Shields says she thinks the roof issuse will do better if it's on a ballot by itself...since they can really foucs on the "issuses" about it, and thus, educating more people about it.

Does anyone think they will try the roof again....with the exact same plan that failed????

i think they will try it with hunt and glass chipping in like 5-10m a piece.

MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!

kcdcchef wrote:i think they will try it with hunt and glass chipping in like 5-10m a piece.

That might work, but I think voters would want them put in at least half.

beautyfromashes wrote:This thread is now worse than the Downtown Stadium/ Save our Stadiums thread. It makes me want to shoot myself in the head everytime I see it turn red. Congratulations ATKC, you now = kcdcchef.

Don't you think it would make sense to just have a retractable roof over Arrowhead and not this rolling roof stuff? It would seem to be easier to climate control arrowhead with a retractable rather than a rolling roof, which would allow us to have a lot more events there. I think I remember a Star article indicating it would take a month of preparation to climate control it! That seems ridiculous to me. If they could get a retractable roof proposal together for the August election and then use some of the money from Question 1 to make the climate control feasible with a retractable, I think we would have a great place. The Royals only rain out an average of 3 times a year. Seems like a waste to do a roof over it for that little use.

CrossroadsKid wrote:Don't you think it would make sense to just have a retractable roof over Arrowhead and not this rolling roof stuff? It would seem to be easier to climate control arrowhead with a retractable rather than a rolling roof, which would allow us to have a lot more events there. I think I remember a Star article indicating it would take a month of preparation to climate control it! That seems ridiculous to me. If they could get a retractable roof proposal together for the August election and then use some of the money from Question 1 to make the climate control feasible with a retractable, I think we would have a great place. The Royals only rain out an average of 3 times a year. Seems like a waste to do a roof over it for that little use.

i wish they would just go back to plan a. the very first renderings were of an indoor arrowhead for one game only. bring that back. screw this rolling roof, lets vote on a proposal to spend like 50-80m or whatever on a way to use panels and what not to make arrowhead stadium indoors for one game only.

MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!

kcdcchef wrote:i wish they would just go back to plan a. the very first renderings were of an indoor arrowhead for one game only. bring that back. screw this rolling roof, lets vote on a proposal to spend like 50-80m or whatever on a way to use panels and what not to make arrowhead stadium indoors for one game only.

But, that is so 1960's!!! With a rolling roof, at least we can advance to 1979!!!

beautyfromashes wrote:This thread is now worse than the Downtown Stadium/ Save our Stadiums thread. It makes me want to shoot myself in the head everytime I see it turn red. Congratulations ATKC, you now = kcdcchef.

KCPowercat wrote:Let's just leave the rolling roof thing alone....Kauffman doesn't need it so there isn't really a good reason for to be able to move over Lot M.

Well, I thought that some of the plans called for some kind of "Events Plaza" in Lot M? I thought they would need a roof for that...and thus, a rolling roof.

beautyfromashes wrote:This thread is now worse than the Downtown Stadium/ Save our Stadiums thread. It makes me want to shoot myself in the head everytime I see it turn red. Congratulations ATKC, you now = kcdcchef.

KCPowercat wrote:That huge roof 200' in the air wouldn't do much for an events plaza anyways.

Oh, great! Now, I guess I am going to have to look elsewhere to see the world's large human pyramid on a rainy day!

beautyfromashes wrote:This thread is now worse than the Downtown Stadium/ Save our Stadiums thread. It makes me want to shoot myself in the head everytime I see it turn red. Congratulations ATKC, you now = kcdcchef.

The probable reason most voted no was because (from testimonies of voters) they were confused by the wording of the ballot. When I read it on the SOS site, it sounded like they were going to raise the 3/8 cent tax, but I knew for a fact that wasn't right.

How did we manage to scrape by all these years since 1972 without a roof?

Lets see we didn't need a roof for Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, U2 concerts there. Didn't need a roof for the Chiefs to go almost undefeated season few years back. 85 World Champion Royals didn't need a roof.

Lettermen didn't particularly care if we had a roof when Dante Hall appeared on his show. Television Networks don't care about roofs. They want exciting teams and games to draw viewers.

90%+ of the economic benefit to Jackson County is from events that will take place within the confines of a climate-controlled Arrowhead, e.g., Super bowl, Final Four, Convention activities. The Royals don't need a roof for an All-star game, and any events held between the stadiums couldn't be climate controlled anyway.

Does someone have a connection at HOK? I'd really like to hear an estimate of what it would cost to put the retractable roof over a renovated Arrowhead. My guess would be 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of a rolling roof.